Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Businesses The Internet IT Technology

If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again 551

Posted by Soulskill
from the that-presupposes-thinking dept.
wiredmikey writes "Now that the last IPv4 address blocks have been allocated, it's expected to take several months for regional registries to consume all of their remaining regional IPv4 address pool. The IPv6 Forum, a group with the mission to educate and promote the new protocol, says that enabling IPv6 in all ICT environments is not the endgame, but is now a critical requirement for continuity in all Internet business and services. Experts believe that the move to IPv6 should be a board-level risk management concern, equivalent to the Y2K problem or Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. During the late 1990s, technology companies worldwide scoured their source code for places where critical algorithms assumed a two-digit date. This seemingly trivial software development issue was of global concern, so many companies made Y2K compliance a strategic initiative. The transition to IPv6 is of similar importance. If you think you can ignore IPv6, think again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again

Comments Filter:
  • ISP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0racle (667029) on Friday February 04, 2011 @05:51PM (#35107252)
    Until my home ISP or the ISP for the company I work for offers IPv6, I think it's going to be very easy to ignore IPv6.
    • Re:ISP (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kenshin (43036) <kenshin AT lunarworks DOT ca> on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:02PM (#35107324) Homepage

      Or you could get ready now, so when they flip the switch you're good to go.

      • Re:ISP (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anrego (830717) * on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:17PM (#35107440)

        Too much could change between now and then (then probably being in about a decade or so).

        I'm with OP, when my ISP gives me one.. i'll deal with it.

        • As I type this in a Starbucks on an AT&T wifi node, DHCP issues both a v4 AND a v6 address.. I've tried to connect to some of the test places via v6, but as of this moment, no joy.. Now if I could just get my home isp to make the jump (Cox)....

          • by cayenne8 (626475)

            "Now if I could just get my home isp to make the jump (Cox)...."

            Even if the cable companies switchover...will it make any difference to the general home user..their cable modem gets the Ipv6 connection, likely goes to a wireless rounter ipv6...but with everything already NAT'ed...people's stuff on internal networks won't really need to change anything....will they?

      • by George_Ou (849225) on Friday February 04, 2011 @08:21PM (#35108442)
        Even if you switch to a pubic IPv6 address, all your internal stuff will still be IPv4. My home print server and IP telephony adapter are all IPv4. The problem with IPv6 is that you can't entirely switch to it and just shut down IPv4. You have to run dualstack for the foreseeable future. That's why every IT consultant and IT manager and CIO I've spoken to says they don't give a crap about IPv6 because every adopter of IPv6 will have to be backward compatible with IPv4 so why bother running dual stack. Even after all the addresses are assigned, not a single IPv4 device or network will stop working.

        The choice is between IPv4 single-stack or IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack. Given those as the only choices, people are choosing the former instead of the latter. There is no possibility of running IPv6 single-stack. IPv6 will essentially become the new "private IP addresses" that have to translate to "public" IPv4 addresses used by 99% of the IP devices in the world. The only difference is that IPv6 devices will be able to talk to each other without a NAT across organizations.
        • I think you have those backwards.. IPv4 will continue to be used with LANs and VPNs for just the sofyware you mentioned with NAT gateways for IPv4 remote services over IPv6. And IPv6 will become ever more important publicly.
    • Re:ISP (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lord Ender (156273) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:06PM (#35107356) Homepage

      ISPs won't support it until customers demand it. This requires government action: use stimulus money to make free porno available to all over IPv6 only. And not just any porno: the kinkiest, highest-resolution, full-length nastiness the Feds can commission.

      Your U-Verse box will have a v6 address within a week.

    • Yea, I'm waiting for my ISP to offer it too, so I can start experimenting with it. I won't use any of the tunneling services because I have a fast connection, so routing the packets trough a longer path than necessary (and this is what would hapen if my Pc decided to use IPv6 instead of v4 to connect to a server that supports both) will reduce my bandwidth, also, I doubt that any of those tunneling services would offer me 80mbps up/down for free.

      Also, my ISP said that they will not be taking the public v4 a

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by simcop2387 (703011)
        That's just it, nobody offers NATv6 because it *shouldn't* be needed. instead you use a real firewall and you get the same protect you got with NAT but with an ip for every computer. if you don't like the idea of having a globally route-able address for every computer turn on the privacy extensions and then your ip will change so that the addresses are useless to anyone else. As it is, people are used to having a "router" to connect multiple computers and have wireless already. this device would change
      • Re:ISP (Score:5, Informative)

        by tweak13 (1171627) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:26PM (#35107522)

        I'd rather have NAT for v6 too

        Why?

        There are always so many people saying they want NAT, but if addresses are plentiful then it serves absolutely no purpose. I think that most people who see it as necessary are confusing its function with a firewall. You do not need NAT to do the same things your home router does today. You can still block all incoming connections to a computer and allow all outgoing connections. You can still allow specific ports to be opened to specific machines.

        Using a public address on your internal network doesn't automatically mean that you need to just allow any traffic in. Use a firewall to "stealth" every port and there will continue to be no evidence that you have a computer there.

    • Re:ISP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tysonedwards (969693) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:10PM (#35107386)
      There are *many* 6 year old Cisco routers and switches out there that are still covered under support contracts that won't be getting IPv6 support as they have been End-of-Life'd. Consider for a moment that many of these same ISPs are the ones who elect to throttle their users to 256Kbps if they go above their 5GB monthly usage limit. Smaller ISPs are already going in and double-natting their customers as well to further over-subscribe their network and get by with less. Home ISPs will likely continue ignoring this problem for years to come, until the eventual hardware swaps enables them to support IPv6 and then have a reason to start billing their customers more for "now with public IPs to improve your gaming performance".
      • Re:ISP (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Spad (470073) <slashdot@sp[ ]co.uk ['ad.' in gap]> on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:15PM (#35107430) Homepage

        The amount of *new* networking kit and software that still doesn't support IPv6 is frankly depressing. Microsoft's Forefront TMG (Their ISA replacement), for example, requires Server 2008/2008 R2 (which have full IPv6 support out of the box) but doesn't actually support IPv6 routing itself and it's only ~1 year old.

      • There are *many* 6 year old Cisco routers and switches out there that are still covered under support contracts that won't be getting IPv6 support as they have been End-of-Life'd

        Wait... if they are EOLed, how are they under support contracts?

        Isn't that kind of like an anti-tautology?

        Maybe I'm way off base here*, in which case please do enlighten me... but does EOLing mean that no support is offered?

        *3rd-party support being the only exception I can think of.

        • Re:ISP (Score:4, Informative)

          by tysonedwards (969693) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:25PM (#35107512)
          With Cisco, End-of-Life and End-of-Support are two wildly different things... To Cisco, End-of-Life means "no more updates", while End-of-Support means "you can call us up for help, and we will provide you with a replacement unit if yours fails". End-of-Support is typically 5 years after the End-of-Life announcement, however there are the random exceptions like their VPN Concentrators.
    • Re:ISP (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dave562 (969951) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:31PM (#35107572) Journal

      You're right. Unless you are a business that is offering internet based services, you can probably ignore IPv6.

  • So really no big deal then?

    • by Stregano (1285764)
      The world, it will end
    • No big deal if an equivalent amount of timely effort is put into it. In other words, It'll be what Y2K would have been had we done nothing.

      • No big deal if an equivalent amount of timely effort is put into it.

        Nonsense. Plenty of companies did absolutely nothing to prepare for Y2K. Entire swaths of the third world budgeted $0 for Y2K. They had little or no problems when the time came.

    • by Firehed (942385)

      A massive undertaking by programmers worldwide in order to prevent a catastrophic meltdown. Completed just in time in a way that's transparent to the rest of the world, making it seem like no big deal.

      Yeah, actually it'll probably be quite a lot like Y2K in that sense.

    • by suso (153703) * on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:33PM (#35107600) Homepage Journal

      I really wouldn't go into board rooms and mention Y2K. The general public seems to think that there was nothing there and it was just a big hoax. I'm sure all of you have encountered this recently too. A few times recently I had to correct people who said something like "That Y2K thing was no big deal". My answer to them was "It was no big deal because people worked for 5-10 years to fix it, otherwise it would have been a big deal". But you all know that.

      But if you want to be dismissed as a panic monger, bring up Y2K, otherwise, don't.

  • IPv6 Mess (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04, 2011 @05:59PM (#35107302)

    Not so fast:

    http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

    http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=128822984018595&w=2

    • Yep, it's a mess. But migration is still critical. The fact its a mess just means that it's that much harder to do right. Maybe if people hadn't been putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "NAT NAT NAT!" for the past 5 years, it wouldn't be such a mess now.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dmelomed (148666)

        You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.

        • by h00manist (800926)

          You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.

          Well, that's a position I've never heard. The messiness of the transition is, well, yes a mess, but that does mean that more techies will make more money to fix it all up. It will get all fixed up one way or another, but it will cost a hell of a lot more.

    • Re:IPv6 Mess (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmilingBoy (686281) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:27PM (#35107542)

      Not so fast:

      http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

      I don't agree at all with this article. The author claims that IPv6 should have been designed as an extension to IPv4 so that IPv4 and IPv6 hosts can communicate with each other directly. This is fundamentally impossible. The IPv4 host can only send packets to IP addresses with 32 bit. Any longer number is not understood by the IPv4 host. In order to make this work, the IP stack of every IPv4 host would need to be updated. Guess what has to be done to have IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack? The IP stack of every IPv4 host needs to be updated!

      • Re:IPv6 Mess (Score:4, Informative)

        by Junta (36770) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:31PM (#35107586)

        Agreed in principle, however NAT64 enables *precisely* what djb complains about. An IPv6 only host can now meaningfully participate in an internet filled with v4-only servers.

    • Re:IPv6 Mess (Score:4, Informative)

      by PRMan (959735) on Friday February 04, 2011 @07:23PM (#35108012)
      Yes, this would have been a whole lot easier if IPv4 addresses like: 76.33.45.121 became 0::76:33:45:121, for instance. Then everyone could easily do IPv6 passthrough. What were these people thinking that created IPv6?
      • by julesh (229690)

        There is a trivial mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, very similar to the one you propose. Bernstein's attack is against a strawman version of IPv6 that doesn't contain this feature.

    • by evanism (600676)
      As a network admin i ABSOLUTELY agree with the first article. IPv6 is going to down in all of history as the greatest disaster in IT. I can barely speak to another admin who isnt loosing hair over this.
  • by ebcdic (39948) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:03PM (#35107334)

    if IPv6 is "a board-level risk management concern", then I certainly can safely ignore it, and so can pretty well every Slashdot reader.

  • Perhaps they should TAKE BACK all the ip6 blocks that were allocated to the big corporate pig that they don't use...
  • by godrik (1287354) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:08PM (#35107364)

    Do we really need to have 3 ipv6 article a week on slashdot. I believe every single slashdotter knows and understands what the problem is about. So I suggest the editors to skip all the articles about "how my god we need to move to ipv6 FAST",

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:27PM (#35107544) Journal
      Yes. These submissions link to articles that we can cite when attempting to convince our PHBs or CxOs that yes, we do indeed need to budget for the ipv6 migration, and no, we can't wait a couple years to get the ball rolling.

      Just wait until "ipv6 conversion specialists" are charging you $450 an hour to make sure your business is not floundering because you ignored the problem until it was an emergency.
  • by isotope23 (210590) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:08PM (#35107366) Homepage Journal

    VRF for an IPv4 Internet Part Two anyone??????

  • Change is frightening. Let us instead implement existing technology in a clunky and hackish fashion.

    Behold the formation of the InterNAT!

  • by green1 (322787) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:10PM (#35107380)

    I finally found the group responsible for IPv6 at my company, and asked about our readiness. now keep in mind, we don't need to wait for an upstream provider as we are the upstream provider, with many peering agreements in place.

    The answer I got back basically amounted to two things:

    1) nobody else is ready, so we don't need to be either.

    2) it's not legally mandated, so it's not important.

    I'm so glad we pride ourselves on our ability to innovate...

    • Good that there are providers that I can switch to when I need to use IPv6 that are better prepared than your company. I really think that having a working and well-tested IPv6 offering - ideally IPv4/IPv6 dual stack or dual stack Lite if there are no more IPv4 addresses - will be a competitive advantage.
      • by green1 (322787)

        For competition in our area there is one other large company, their publicly stated IPv6 policies are actually worse than ours (which is quite the feat to be honest!) and a handful of small ISPs reselling our lines and using us as an upstream provider... they don't have much choice in the matter.

        So about that "competitive advantage" you were talking about...

    • is when desperate (or "innovating") ISPs decide to jack up the rates on static blocks. Companies that have a static /24 will see the rate to lease that block double overnight. Then if you're only REALLY using a few dozen of them, giving some of that back is going to look really attractive. Did I say double? how about x16? if you can live with 29 usable instead of 253 I bet that's an offer many can't refuse.

      I've got a block of 8 myself (5 usable naturally) so I think I'm safe from the vultures for awhil

  • by medv4380 (1604309) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:11PM (#35107388)
    When the final set of 8's were handed out I got in contact with my ISP and this is what they said

    Qwest has taken care of the IPv4 exhaust issue for our residential customers at the ISP level. We are implementing the capability to communicate with contacts at both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. This transition will be transparent to Qwest residential and business customers.

    I'm not sure if the transition can actually be transparent since at a minimum I'll have to do something with my TCP/IP so it knows that IP6 is there, and from the looks of it my Modem doesn't support it ether without maybe a firmware upgrade.

  • by TheSync (5291) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:25PM (#35107516) Journal

    I can double the number of IPv4 addressable machines.

    UDP and TCP ports 1-512 will now be one machine, and ports 513 and higher will be another machine.

    • IP has no concept of "ports". Aside from the fact that you didn't split the port space evenly, you clearly have no concept of how IP and networking works. And even if this is a serious suggestion, and could possibly be implemented, it would be at least as much (if not more) work than implementing IPv6 *anyway*.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Pi1grim (1956208)

      Oh my god, did somebody just invent NAT?

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Apparently an economist opinion about computer technology is just as good as an economist opinion on the economy.

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:29PM (#35107556) Homepage Journal

    Yes we know.

    Major ISP's are just now getting the ball rolling. Client software is still being perfected. The bridges for early adopters are known to be flakey. Talk to the people working on that stuff (oh, wait, you don't need to, they're already underway).

    Most readers here will move along when the infrastructure is ready. We know the address space is effectively out but there's little reason to do much at this point, and anybody trying to push people to adopt IPv6 before the tools are robust is kidding themselves.

    • At least before home users can care, is a good 4 to 6 translation system. What I mean is let's say your ISP goes IPv6 and your cable modem gets just an IPv6 address. If you have a newer computer (Vista or newer, newer OS-X releases, etc) it'll just work. It can have its own public IPv6 address and everything is great.

      However, what do you do about older stuff? I'm not just talking older computers, which possibly could be upgraded, but I'm talking older devices, which can't. My AV receiver is a networked devi

      • by Chemisor (97276)

        That's called NAT-PT and I've just had a huge flamewar about it on the last IPv6 article. Basically, all the v6 geeks here hate NAT and think nobody should be allowed to have such a thing. Hence, the RFC has been deprecated and nobody is even trying to implement it.

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Friday February 04, 2011 @06:31PM (#35107582) Homepage Journal
    ... the one where by far most of the people, even if you go just to the IT ones, ignores even what is IPv6. How many isps or carriers now are giving ipv6 as an option? Probably the most common policy now is "lets wait till everyone else already took the first step before moving a finger" (later it will be "let all scream and run in circles")
  • by geekpowa (916089) on Friday February 04, 2011 @07:02PM (#35107860)

    Nothing helps drive a wedge between people and their money than a fear incessantly pounded into their brain like a rusty nail.

    IPv6 caper should help pay off the mortgage. Then 2038 should set me up quite comfortably for retirement.

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday February 04, 2011 @07:31PM (#35108064) Homepage

    The big mistake was not making mobile IP devices IPv6 from the beginning. Even if they had to go through a NAT at the telco. Most of the growth is in mobile devices.

    Fortunately, most mobile devices respond to updates pushed from the carrier. So mobile carriers need to be encouraged to implement that transition. Carriers are in a good position for this, since they control both ends of the air link. Some of this must be happening already.

  • by falzer (224563) on Friday February 04, 2011 @08:07PM (#35108326)

    Facebook, 4chan, digg, slashdot, reddit, and redtube make their sites accessible by ipv6 only (and not through v4 to v6 tunnels.)
    They take a hit in traffic for a little while, two weeks later, every ISP is giving out ipv6 addresses and every ancient router and pc is upgraded. :)

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...